Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Ramón A. Feenstra

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 2. List of university faculty and researchers in philosophy and ethics interviewed according to career position

Table 2 List of university faculty and researchers in philosophy and ethics interviewed according to career position

Related Figures (7)

Table 1. Demographics of the survey of Spanish university faculty and researchers in philosophy and ethics The data was collected using Google Forms and respondents were asked about their affiliation and employment situation. The questions were divided into four main sections: 1) information search behaviour, 2) communication practices, 3) scientific evaluation, and 4) ethics in scientific publication, the latter being the main focus of the present study. This section aimed to uncover the prevalence of misconduct and how it might be affected by the evaluation system applied in Spain.
Table 1. Demographics of the survey of Spanish university faculty and researchers in philosophy and ethics The data was collected using Google Forms and respondents were asked about their affiliation and employment situation. The questions were divided into four main sections: 1) information search behaviour, 2) communication practices, 3) scientific evaluation, and 4) ethics in scientific publication, the latter being the main focus of the present study. This section aimed to uncover the prevalence of misconduct and how it might be affected by the evaluation system applied in Spain.
The interviewees were affiliated to the universities of Barcelona, Castellon, Complutense (Madrid), Granada, Murcia, Valencia, Zaragoza and the Basque Country, as well as the Institute of Philosophy at the CSIC. The semi-structured interviews lasted an average of 35.30 minutes; the shortest was 14.14 minutes and the longest, 59.10 minutes. The interviews were then transcribed for analysis. Try _ a 4 we ee eg . FJ ge aL... cee See See, Se
The interviewees were affiliated to the universities of Barcelona, Castellon, Complutense (Madrid), Granada, Murcia, Valencia, Zaragoza and the Basque Country, as well as the Institute of Philosophy at the CSIC. The semi-structured interviews lasted an average of 35.30 minutes; the shortest was 14.14 minutes and the longest, 59.10 minutes. The interviews were then transcribed for analysis. Try _ a 4 we ee eg . FJ ge aL... cee See See, Se
Table 3. Number of research misconducts considered prevalent by Spanish university faculty anc researchers in the fields of philosophy and ethics The most prevalent forms of misconduct identified were duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), which were mentioned by almost two thirds of the survey respondents (Figure 1). By contrast, plagiarism was considered to be a less frequent practice, only noted in 28.5% of the responses. The use of personal influence to smooth the path to publication was the third most commonly mentioned misconduct
Table 3. Number of research misconducts considered prevalent by Spanish university faculty anc researchers in the fields of philosophy and ethics The most prevalent forms of misconduct identified were duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), which were mentioned by almost two thirds of the survey respondents (Figure 1). By contrast, plagiarism was considered to be a less frequent practice, only noted in 28.5% of the responses. The use of personal influence to smooth the path to publication was the third most commonly mentioned misconduct
Figure 1. Prevalence of research misconduct in publishing among Spanish university faculty and researchers in the fields of philosophy and ethics We found no significant differences between the two knowledge areas with regard to the prevalence of research misconduct in publication (Figure 2). In general, misconduct was found to be slightly higher in ethics than in philosophy, with just two exceptions: duplicate publication (68.7% in philosophy), and pressure on journal editors to favour or smooth the path to publication (31.3%).
Figure 1. Prevalence of research misconduct in publishing among Spanish university faculty and researchers in the fields of philosophy and ethics We found no significant differences between the two knowledge areas with regard to the prevalence of research misconduct in publication (Figure 2). In general, misconduct was found to be slightly higher in ethics than in philosophy, with just two exceptions: duplicate publication (68.7% in philosophy), and pressure on journal editors to favour or smooth the path to publication (31.3%).
Figure 2. Prevalence of research misconduct in publishing among Spanish university faculty and researchers in the fields of philosophy and ethics according to discipline
Figure 2. Prevalence of research misconduct in publishing among Spanish university faculty and researchers in the fields of philosophy and ethics according to discipline
Table 4. Number and type of misconduct mentioned by Spanish university faculty and researchers in the fields of philosophy and ethics in the interviews
Table 4. Number and type of misconduct mentioned by Spanish university faculty and researchers in the fields of philosophy and ethics in the interviews
The qualitative information gathered in this study sheds more light on these data. The interviewees associated the proliferation of research misconduct with “the current model” of evaluation. It is important to note that the researchers themselves made this connection, as no direct question was asked in the interview. When they responded to the question on the prevalence of misconduct, they spoke at length about the evaluation system, which they viewed as inseparable from the problem of misconduct. In total, 10 interviewees made this association and only the three youngest researchers (who started their academic career under the new system and had known no alternative, RfE1-1, RfE2-1, RfPh1-i) and one senior lecturer (who did not perceive any specific misconduct as widespread, SIPh2-1) did not make this point. The interviewees explained this association in different terms. Some attributed it to aspects such as the “pressure to publish” (PPh1-i, PE2-i, PE3-i), others to the introduction of “quantitative evaluation” of merit (SIPh1-i, SIPh3-i) or to the dynamics caused by “the system” (SIE1-i, LPh2-i). Finally, others consider that in a competitive environment the “survival instinct” drives the proliferation of research misconduct (LPh1-1i, SIE2-i, PE1-1). Opinions expressed in the open question of the survey also linked the increase in
The qualitative information gathered in this study sheds more light on these data. The interviewees associated the proliferation of research misconduct with “the current model” of evaluation. It is important to note that the researchers themselves made this connection, as no direct question was asked in the interview. When they responded to the question on the prevalence of misconduct, they spoke at length about the evaluation system, which they viewed as inseparable from the problem of misconduct. In total, 10 interviewees made this association and only the three youngest researchers (who started their academic career under the new system and had known no alternative, RfE1-1, RfE2-1, RfPh1-i) and one senior lecturer (who did not perceive any specific misconduct as widespread, SIPh2-1) did not make this point. The interviewees explained this association in different terms. Some attributed it to aspects such as the “pressure to publish” (PPh1-i, PE2-i, PE3-i), others to the introduction of “quantitative evaluation” of merit (SIPh1-i, SIPh3-i) or to the dynamics caused by “the system” (SIE1-i, LPh2-i). Finally, others consider that in a competitive environment the “survival instinct” drives the proliferation of research misconduct (LPh1-1i, SIE2-i, PE1-1). Opinions expressed in the open question of the survey also linked the increase in
Related topics:
PhilosophyEthicsPlagiarism DetectionResearch Misconduct
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved